Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on September 03, 2016, 02:27:28 pm

See this is why Steemit was a kick in the nuts to BTS investors. Our community and resources were basically raped and pillaged over to Steem.

"Not going to compete with BitShares" my ass.

I had a long skype conversation with @roadscape when his Cryptofresh worker was voted out.

That worker had been paying him a very meager salary for the building of cryptofersh and for its maintenance and upgrades (especially considering the long hours and on call, round the clock, nature of the work he had been doing). He spent huge amounts of uncompensated time on developing Cryptofresh before he asked for some worker pay for maintenance and upgrades. He was absolutely dedicated and was thus devastated by being voted out.

Steemit has given back to @roadscape his confidence, dignity and some remuneration for his efforts. All the things that were not given to him by Bitshares "investors".

Some Bitshares "investors" appear to have have kicked themselves in the nuts. Unfortunately, the consequences of their actions are not confined to themselves but have hurt all of us loyal bitshares holders.

Quote from: bitcrab on August 18, 2016, 03:14:43 am

the idea of paying bitUSD to worker is interesting and make sense.

but it will bring some challenge, the committee will need to borrow bitUSD, and sell BTS periodically  with high enough price to cover the debt position.

let's first do some calculation.

currently the reserve balance is 1,029,940,606 BTS, if we put half of these balance to collateral with a low enough price say 0.0018USD/BTS as"my margin call price", we can get 463473 bitUSD.

suppose we set budget at 80USD/hour, then these bitUSD can offer at least 241 days.

to make this happen, we need:
1.developers provide the necessary change, maybe a hard fork is needed?
2.committee draft a plan to borrow bitUSD and sell BTS periodically, committee will play the role a little like FED.

surely the precondition is that the community reach a consensus on doing this.

Absolutely we need consensus, but I don't think people will support accessing the reserve pool at a rate higher than the current max spending budget of:
14,675 BTS per hour.  (see here http://cryptofresh.com/reserve)
Like you say this max 14675 bts hour is equivalent to $80 per hour at todays prices.

How we make this max worker budget function as bitUSD instead of BTS is tricky.
 I can't see how it would work with the decentralised voting system if the committee is paying the workers.

Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on August 05, 2016, 12:08:21 pm

So that would mean If someone settled $635.5 everyone else would be unable to settle their BitUSD for the next hour?
why 0.5% what is wrong with 20%?

I see it as protection for shorters... in all other trading engines, you get margin called and you still have opportunity to increase your collateral.

Another point of view: daily trading volume of bitUSD in last 24 hours was 1900 USD, in this context 635 USD per hour isn't that low number. Still good topic for discussion whether it shouldn't be set to some different value.

I think we had some really good arguments from both sides in this discussions already. The last time many concerns have been brought up regarding the promise of "at least 100%" back.

I would like to wait a bit longer with a market change with BitUSD too. I expect a different market situation once BlockPay started. We will have a huge liquidity inflow with hundreds of merchants who want to sell their BitAssets again. This will create a full new dynamic for our markets when people want to sell 30k BitUSD on the DEX every day.

What are your thoughts about that?